Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 3 of 9
The tribunal deleted the ₹1 lakh addition as it was purely ad-hoc and not substantiated by the AO. For the second issue, the tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the sources of funds and deployment of capital.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, following its own previous decision. It was held that Section 43B is not applicable to service tax liability as it is collected on behalf of the government.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as a cooperative bank without an RBI license. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was unsustainable.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the lack of objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision, held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments with other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance by the lower authorities was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender. The addition made under Section 68 was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to grant another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim for delayed PF/ESIC payments and the deletion of disallowance on interest-free advances, relying on previous ITAT and High Court rulings. It also confirmed the restriction of Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal found the assessee's contentions to be factual and requiring verification. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after considering the relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases, the AO's estimation of profit margin at 25% was excessive. The CIT(A)'s reduction to 10% was found to be reasonable and upheld.
The Tribunal held that payments for HR software license fees and ongoing support services do not constitute royalty under the India-Netherlands tax treaty. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. CIT, which clarified that such payments are not for the use of copyright.
The ITAT admitted the additional evidence, finding sufficient cause for its non-submission earlier. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disallowing the entire bogus purchases as the assessee's sales turnover and inventory were not disputed. It was reasoned that only the profit element embedded in such transactions should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the entire amount should not be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be brought to tax, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to 12.5% was justified.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer, following its own previous order in similar cases. The assessee is to provide details to match sales with alleged bogus purchases, and the addition will be reduced by the gross profit shown on these purchases.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee follows the Project Completion Method, the on-money is taxable in the year of project completion. Furthermore, following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal restricted the addition on account of on-money to 12% of the total on-money received.
The Tribunal found that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had erred in not applying a proper benchmarking method and in applying the benefit test. The AO's reasoning was also found to be contradictory. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that since the facts and issues for the current assessment year were identical to previous years where the Tribunal had accepted the assessee's agricultural income, the disallowance was unjustified. The Tribunal followed its previous order and vacated the disallowance.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly followed a recalled ITAT order. While the entire purchases could not be added as non-genuine since sales were accepted, the profit element embedded in these purchases was to be estimated. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element at 4% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that while the addition for bogus purchases was justified due to the assessee's failure to substantiate them, there was no clinching material to prove a deliberate attempt to evade taxes. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, by expanding the scope of MCI regulations to pharmaceutical companies, imposed a burden not supported by law. The expenses were incurred in the normal course of business for product promotion and education, not as prohibited gifts.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration by the Pr. CIT(Exemptions) was set aside by a higher tribunal, restoring the assessee's eligibility for exemption. Therefore, the AO was incorrect in denying exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Accepting this request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that investments in growth funds, foreign companies, and properties should be excluded from the average investment calculation for disallowance under Section 14A. It further found that the assessee's own funds exceeded the average investments, thus no disallowance was warranted under Rule 8D(2)(ii).
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that investments in growth funds, foreign companies, and properties should be excluded from the average investment calculation for disallowance under Section 14A. It further found that the assessee's own funds exceeded the average investments, thus no disallowance was warranted under Rule 8D(2)(ii).
The CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to apply his mind to all issues arising from the impugned order and cannot summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found the ad hoc disallowance to be arbitrary as there was no specific infirmity pointed out in the vouchers or the genuineness of the expenses. The Tribunal set aside the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the entire amount could not be disallowed as sales were not disputed. Only the suppressed profit margin could be brought to tax.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which made MCI regulations applicable to pharmaceutical companies, could not be applied retrospectively. It also noted that MCI regulations primarily govern doctors' conduct, not pharmaceutical companies.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay and receive a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. Even on merits, the entire bogus purchases could not be disallowed if sales turnover was accepted.
The Tribunal held that APP had a Permanent Establishment in India. Consequently, the income was taxable as business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA, which led to the application of domestic law rates. The Tribunal upheld the tax authorities' view that the applicable tax rate was 20%.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to apply their mind to all issues arising from the impugned order and cannot summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the vendors and purchases, the entire disallowance of purchases was unjustified. Only the suppressed profit margin embedded in such transactions can be brought to tax.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the matter had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue also conceded to the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue's representative conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the corporate guarantee fee to 0.5% and allow ESOP expenditure, citing jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court precedents. It also upheld the deletion of Section 14A disallowance, finding the assessee's suo motu disallowance sufficient and the AO's computation incorrect.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that since transactions between the assessee and its Associated Enterprise (AE) were found to be at arm's length prices, no further income chargeable to tax in India was attributable to the PE. Additionally, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision that payments for software supply do not constitute royalty under the India-US tax treaty.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified. Consequently, the issues related to capital gains and the assessee's claim of capital loss were rendered academic and infructuous.
The Tribunal decided that the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) regarding share premium was not justified. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal decided that the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) regarding share premium was not justified. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the infrastructure data center charges, referral fees, and member login fees were not in the nature of royalty. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the agents in India were independent and not exclusively working for the assessee, thus not constituting a dependent agent PE. Consequently, the assessee was eligible for DTAA benefits, and its shipping income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.